After the Steven Hopstaken comment, I've wondered if there was another side to the coin: if Paramount was feeding Berman and Piller ideas based on what it learned about B5's production, maybe Warner was feeding Straczynski ideas from what it learned about DS9.

I can't speak on this issue specifically but, despite some interesting parallels and coincidences, they were both really their own shows and told their own stories. I actually like both shows a lot with B5 slightly edging out DS9 in terms of consistency of overall quality.

However, when it comes to an argument about respecting the wishes of the original author (implicit or otherwise) considering what Moore chose to do with the characters of L. Frank Baum and J. M. Barrie, I rather think he gave up the moral high ground in this instance.

From what I've read, Alan Moore regrets some of the decisions he has made in the past when it comes to contracts and rights. The way he tells it, as far as I can remember, is that his contract with DC Comics states that if Watchmen (or possibly V for Vendetta, I forget which) ever goes out of print, the rights will revert back to him and Dave Gibbons. However, DC Comics have made sure they've never gone out of print. OK, it means that Moore gets a nice steady income, but I think right now - given the film adaptations and streams of merchandise - he'd rather have his toys back.

To be honest, Alan Moore always seemed to be a bit... touchy when it came to his graphic novels. He apparently hates pretty much everything other people are doing with them, be it the publication of prequel comics or the making of film adaptations.

Well, if it's that important to him he just shouldn't have signed contracts allowing DC to do just this, I guess...

Click to expand...

I think Moore is showing his age by not being able to adjust to the changing times.
His reasoning sounds more like Grandpa Simpson yelling at clouds.

However, when it comes to an argument about respecting the wishes of the original author (implicit or otherwise) considering what Moore chose to do with the characters of L. Frank Baum and J. M. Barrie, I rather think he gave up the moral high ground in this instance.

Well, I've only read the summarized version, but a recent (last?) League of Extraordinary Gentlemen storyline saw them dealing with an insane Chosen One/Antichrist that massacred a Wizard School reachable by Platform 9 3/4 from King's Cross Station.

However, when it comes to an argument about respecting the wishes of the original author (implicit or otherwise) considering what Moore chose to do with the characters of L. Frank Baum and J. M. Barrie, I rather think he gave up the moral high ground in this instance.

Click to expand...

Yup. J.K. Rowling's, too.

Click to expand...

Clarify, please...

Click to expand...

Mina Harker runs into Voldemort in 1960s England, he tried to rape her.

Later on, Harry Potter shows up as the Anti-Christ who kills people by shooting lightning out of his penis.

Paramount are still pieces of shit toward Star Trek. It's just that Paramount execs and Abrams&Co are on the same wavelength. So they don't have to dictate them as much as they had to dictate Berman&Co.

Paramount are still pieces of shit toward Star Trek. It's just that Paramount execs and Abrams&Co are on the same wavelength. So they don't have to dictate them as much as they had to dictate Berman&Co.

Click to expand...

I'll admit I liked the two recent movies, and the casting really really helps forget the weak writing, but those two movies are only Star Trek by name.

I think Abrams Trek movies are good movies, but it's hard for me to see them as Trek movies because they're intellectually so out of sync with what I consider Trek. It should be considered just a good remake of Trek rather than canonically part of the same multiverse, and it certainly shouldn't stop the prime universe from ever being explored again. They should just be treated like a separate entity.

For DS9 vs B5, I say if DS9 did copy some of the base ideas for B5, good for them, because they wrote the ideas much better.

And I get an image in my head of two eighty year olds, fifty years from now, refusing to speak to each other because one likes DS9 and the other likes B5. Then their twenty year old grandson walking in, giggling and thinking "Pops, you and your silent movies".

LOL! I really want to get in on the B5 vs. DS9 discussion and be one of those silly old men one day, but I have yet to see B5. I do hope it comes to Netflix someday. I'd love to check it out.

And Jirin, I'm not giving up on the prime universe yet either! It's easy to separate the new movies from what came before because Abrams took care of it for us in his own clever or lazy way depending on your view of it. It's an alternate universe, so it doesn't impact prime (except for prime Spock's experiences there). That's enough for me anyway without getting into the whole subjective area of canon.

Paramount are still pieces of shit toward Star Trek. It's just that Paramount execs and Abrams&Co are on the same wavelength. So they don't have to dictate them as much as they had to dictate Berman&Co.

Click to expand...

I'll admit I liked the two recent movies, and the casting really really helps forget the weak writing, but those two movies are only Star Trek by name.

I think Abrams Trek movies are good movies, but it's hard for me to see them as Trek movies because they're intellectually so out of sync with what I consider Trek. It should be considered just a good remake of Trek rather than canonically part of the same multiverse, and it certainly shouldn't stop the prime universe from ever being explored again. They should just be treated like a separate entity.